The New York Times reports on a survey showing that the average digital music player user stores only 375 songs on his device. Half of the people surveyed carry fewer than 100 songs. iPod owners have slightly higher song counts, averaging 504 songs per player. That's a leaves a lot of empty space on even the 1000-song capacity iPod minis or the new nano Advancements in storage, it seems, are outpacing the demand.
I could be one of the typical users described in the survey. I have a 60-gigabyte iPod - given to me by Apple after I exchanged a new-but-broken 30-gigabyte model for another 30-gigabyte iPod only to have the replacement give me more trouble than the first; the squeaky wheel does indeed get the grease - but am so far using just 11.07 gigabytes to carry about 2,300 songs. As a subscriber to various podcasts, the space I use fluctuates, but so far I have not broken the 13-gigabyte mark.
A lot of bloggers have jumped at the chance to use the study as an example of white earbud snobbery.
People use them mostly not to fulfil a utilitarian function -- i.e. to play music -- but rather to broadcast a message that they are true music aficionados. To walk around with the aery white earbuds jammed in your skull is to insist that you are the sort of person who not only needs to have music around you -- but needs to have 10,000 songs at your beck and call every second of the day, because nothing less would satisfy the subtle nuances of your all-encompassing taste: Cutting-edge German techno? Early Lomax folk blues recordings? Mozart? Your soul is on permanent shuffle. Mere labels cannot define you.
I do not necessarily disagree that many iPod users like to show off their status as members of the digerati, but why single them out? Overneed, which is not really a word but is the best term I can think of to describe this trend in American consumerism, is rampant in our society. Carrying a 60-gigabyte MP3 player to carry only 100 songs is no different than driving a Range Rover to a strip mall. Plenty of studies have shown that those who buy pricey SUVs with four-wheel drive, tinted windows and grille guards aren't just buying a car but are buying a statement; they are saying that although they might mostly drive to work and back they could, at any moment, pull the car off the road and drive off into the wilderness. Even smaller items project images beyond function. I know plenty of people in New York who own high-performance Patagonia jackets suited for climbs of Mt. Everest even though they only walk from home to the nearest subway station. How many people use carabiners capable of holding a 300-pound man as keychains or to carry a Nalgene bottle to work? There's little correlation between the ability to purchase a Viking stove and cooking skill. Those $300 Burberry umbrellas I often see in Manhattan don't keep people any less wet than those picked up for eight bucks on a streetcorner.
If Americans were satisfied with what works or simply what they needed, our giant economy would grind to a halt. The ire that many people seem to have for iPod users seems misplaced, even if those little white earbuds are worn more for the status they convey than the music they play.
Posted by Doug at September 12, 2005 03:04 PMI think the term you're looking for is conspicuous consumption, and you're right. Then again it's neither a new phenomenon, nor a strictly American one. (For example, medieval lords and ladies wore those impractical long droopy sleeves to show that they could afford the fabric.)
Posted by: David. (Macon GA) at September 13, 2005 08:41 AMI think it's more than conspicuous consumption as this trend does not always mean getting the most expensive brand name. It's about getting something with more technical features than is needed, regardless of price. The example of the umbrella was probably not a great one, but the SUV is a perfect example. Someone who can afford a $50,000 luxury SUV could probably afford a $50,000 Mercedes sedan. The sedan would be safer, handle better, get better gas mileage and have a smoother ride yet something inside that person tells him to get the SUV. Will he ever need off-road capability, grill guards and other safari-type features in LA, New York or the suburbs?
It's probably the same with the 60-gig iPods. I might never use much more than 13 gigs, but the device offers me the potential to expand my music collection exponentially. A person might never become a five-star chef, but he definitely won't do it with an Amana...better get the Viking.
I think it's more than making a statement about how much money one has to spend on things, it's also about what those things say about our potential as human beings.
Posted by: Doug at September 13, 2005 10:56 AMWell put and great new word. I think the corollary to this term "overneed" is a phrase coined by Catherine Ponder in her book The Dynamic Laws of Prosperity. The phrase is "Lack Consciousness" or a fear of there not being enough _________ (fill in the blank) in the world or in this case not enough gigabytes in the IPod.
Posted by: Laura at September 13, 2005 12:37 PM